College Playoff

[OH10]

SD - I was going to respond to your previous post, but decided not to because I really only wanted to mention one thing rather than repeat myself as I have in previous years on this topic. But, considering the above quoted text.....

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT PLAYOFFS ARE ILLIGITIMATE! I HAVE NEVER MADE THAT CONTENTION AND I TIRE OF HAVING TO EXPLAIN THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

My point remains the same then. No one is arguing about the legitimacy of the NCAA tournament or the playoffs in other sports. Not even you. And yet we have this debate about the BCS every year. Doesn't that fact in and of itself raise questions about its legitimacy?

 

[OSUScoonie12]

I'm more interested in my CFB champion being the best team over the course of a season, not the "hottest" at the end of it.

This goes back to what OH1O said about new players. College is a lot different then pros because you changing out a large chunk of players every year. A team may start out slow with new players but grow as the season goes on. With the BCS, a young team could lose early in the season and be totally out of the National Championship picture, but by the end of the year they are the best team in the county.

Or, what about injuries? If a team loses their QB or stud RB for a game or two and they lose their NC picture is gone with the BCS.

With a playoff system these type of teams still have a shot. If you slip up once because of an injury or your team is still learning then you still have a chance at a NC. With the BCS this is not true. One loss and you are basically done for the season.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

My point remains the same then. No one is arguing about the legitimacy of the NCAA tournament or the playoffs in other sports. Not even you. And yet we have this debate about the BCS every year. Doesn't that fact in and of itself raise questions about its legitimacy?

No. Because no one has been able to satisfy the burden of establishing that the BCS is illegitimate to its purpose - crowning the best team in college football in any given season, Champ.

I could give a rats ass what "most people" think generally, and specifically about this topic, which is filled with irrational thought from "most people"

 

[Steve19]

This goes back to what OH1O said about new players. College is a lot different then pros because you changing out a large chunk of players every year. A team may start out slow with new players but grow as the season goes on. With the BCS, a young team could lose early in the season and be totally out of the National Championship picture, but by the end of the year they are the best team in the county.

Or, what about injuries? If a team loses their QB or stud RB for a game or two and they lose their NC picture is gone with the BCS.

With a playoff system these type of teams still have a shot. If you slip up once because of an injury or your team is still learning then you still have a chance at a NC. With the BCS this is not true. One loss and you are basically done for the season.

But, by the same argument, you may be the best team in the country, but lose just one playoff game due to the same problem (e.g., Ted Ginn) and...?

How does a playoff system sort that out?

Here's the real issue. If you listened to the NCAA this week, they want a playoff system because they want to get their hands on the money and inflate their little empire of meaninglessness. As it is, the BCS returns much more money to the teams. That doesn't sit well with the NCAA.

 

[Zurp]

But, by the same argument, you may be the best team in the country, but lose just one playoff game due to the same problem (e.g., Ted Ginn) and...?

Good point. Why should one game mean more than another? If you lose an early game, and finish 11-1, and the team you lost to finished 9-3, you can both make it to the playoffs. You win the first round game and on you go. You lost a now-meaningless game, and won the one that matters. But say you won that first game, and all other games have the same outcome. Your team finished 12-0. That other team finished 8-4, and somehow beat your team in the playoffs. Blame it on injuries, or the weather, or the field, or the officials, or just say that its tough to beat that team twice in a year. Whatever your excuse is, your team won the meaningless game, and lost the playoff game. I understand that "that's the way it goes". But I don't see how that makes the championship more legitimate.

 

[OSUScoonie12]

No. Because no one has been able to satisfy the burden of establishing that the BCS is illegitimate to its purpose - crowning the best team in college football in any given season, Champ.

How about 2004 with three automatic BCS schools going undefeated? Sure there was a winner of the "NC game" but we still don't know who of those was the best. How about last year with all the undefeated teams? We still don't know who truly was the best.

Yes the BCS crowns a "champion" but how confident are we that they are the best team in the country? I do agree the BCS has worked as planned for the majority of its time...but recently it has been very flaky. If you have more then 2 undefeated teams, automatic qualifiers or not, (like this year, last year, 2004, etc) I don't see how the BCS can name a true champion. With a playoff system all the undefeated teams would prove themselves on the field, not through human and computer polls.

If there was a playoff it should contain all the conference winners and a few at large bids. That way the regular season is still very meaningful for all teams and winning your conference gives you an automatic berth (like the BCS does). If teams do slip up, there is still a chance they can come back to win their conference, or get an at-large bids.

 

[Saw31]

The Pats beat the Giants a few weeks before that Super Bowl. Therefore, it was "settled on the field", to use a phrase that so many seem to love. The Pats were better. But of course, nothing was actually "settled", because it was a completely meaningless game.

I can listen to a lot of pro-playoff arguments and say "ok, maybe", but to say that a playoff does not make the regular season less meaningful is patently wrong. Fact, not opinion. Proven a 1000 times over in every single NFL season. We are treated to enough meaningless football in the NFL. Lock up your seeding and sit everybody for a week or two. I don't ever want that in the college game. The end of an NFL regular season is just a 'check point', and it doesn't matter who gets there first. The end of a college football season is a 'finish line' and it very much matters who gets there first. If you really have this need to ruin the best game on earth, at least pick a better argument...

 

[JXC]

The Pats beat the Giants a few weeks before that Super Bowl. Therefore, it was "settled on the field", to use a phrase that so many seem to love. The Pats were better. But of course, nothing was actually "settled", because it was a completely meaningless game.

I can listen to a lot of pro-playoff arguments and say "ok, maybe", but to say that a playoff does not make the regular season less meaningful is patently wrong. Fact, not opinion. Proven a 1000 times over in every single NFL season. We are treated to enough meaningless football in the NFL. Lock up your seeding and sit everybody for a week or two. I don't ever want that in the college game. The end of an NFL regular season is just a 'check point', and it doesn't matter who gets there first. The end of a college football season is a 'finish line' and it very much matters who gets there first. If you really have this need to ruin the best game on earth, at least pick a better argument...

If it's all about NCs and nothing else, then we already have a lot of meaningless college football games. How was OSU/Mich meaningful this year? Neither team had a shot at the NC. Out of 60 games at the end of the year, maybe 4 games had NC implications. And the "season was over" for over 110 teams, if you believe that games are "meaningless" if they don't involve a chance to win a NC.

If we had a playoff, maybe some games would be less meaningful, because win or lose a team would still make the playoffs (although seeding and homefield advantage could be affected, so it wouldn't be completely meaningless at all). But I contend that other games would become more meaningful, like OSU/Mich. OSU would need to win that game to have a chance at the NC. And there are pleanty more because many more teams would still be alive to win a NC at the end of the year, and many teams would also lose a chance at it because of a loss. Plus you would have 15 additional games after the regular season that are meaningful, instead of just 1.

When "homefield advantage" is affected by seeding and ranking, then you would not have teams resting all their players and losing games like you have in the NFL. NFL teams that still have a chance at home field advantage and byes don't sit their players because they are already in the playoffs. Those games still hold a lot of meaning. Why was Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh so big the other week? Not because it was an elimination game, but because it was for home field advantage. It was still one of the biggest football games this year. Not meaningless.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

No. Because no one has been able to satisfy the burden of establishing that the BCS is illegitimate to its purpose - crowning the best team in college football in any given season, Champ.

I could give a rats ass what "most people" think generally, and specifically about this topic, which is filled with irrational thought from "most people"

So, college sports' biggest revenue generator not following a playoff system that all other divisions of college football, along with all other major college sports, follow is rational?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

How about 2004 with three automatic BCS schools going undefeated? Sure there was a winner of the "NC game" but we still don't know who of those was the best. How about last year with all the undefeated teams? We still don't know who truly was the best.

Sure we do. The reason I feel comfortable saying this is because the BCS did precisely what it was designed to do. Evaluate otherwise equal teams (won loss record being 12-0) and determine which 2 of those 3 were the more 'deserving' Auburn got left out in 2004 because their schedule was not as impressive as either USC or OUs, plain and simple. It's pretty easy to see this phenomena when we're comparing the schedules of Texas and Ball State and trying to decide who the better team is, and it's a much closer call when comparing Auburn to OU or USC.... but.. fact is, a distinction between 3 like teams had to be made and it was made.

Could Auburn have beaten USC? Sure they could have. I don't know which team was better as a matter of fact But... I also don't have a problem with debating the merits of Auburn or USC etc. I mean, hells bells.. we're on a message board devoted to college football..... we LOVE to talk about this shit.. I have a hard time accepting that controversy is "bad" for CFB.

In any event, if you want to start arguing that Tulane "deserved a shot" in 1998, I guess I'll take your position a little more seriously... but.. I doubt you give a rats ass about Tulane.

Incidentally - in 2004, lets say we bring Auburn along... we've got USC, OU and Auburn all undefeated.... who else deserves a shot? We can't just bring Auburn... we have to bring some other team, no? Why should that team get a chance just because Auburn went undefeated?


In any event, I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that there will be playoffs one day. It seems pretty inevitable at this point.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So, college sports' biggest revenue generator not following a playoff system that all other divisions of college football, along with all other major college sports, follow is rational?

First, I'm not trying to argue by false dilemma here. If I call item A irrational, I am not arguing nor even implying item B is therefore rational. Just like I have not claimed playoffs are illegitimate, but every one seems to think I must be saying that they are illegitimate because I'm claiming the BCS is as legit.

Second... Yes, to answer your question, it is rational.

Is the goal to make money? Yes? Well, you answered it yourself, "college sports' biggest revenue generator."

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

there will be playoffs one day. It seems pretty inevitable at this point.

Glad to see you've finally come around to supporting a playoff to demonstrate who the best FBS team is each season, BKB. Took you long enough.

:p

 

[Muck]

Well, you answered it yourself, "college sports' biggest revenue generator."

I do find that argument somewhat amusing.

If the bowl systems is doing it 'wrong', then how did it manage to become the most popular & largest money maker?


Give me an unseeded +1:
Go back to the pre Bowl Alliance bowl system.

Rose: Big Ten champ vs Pac 10 champ
Sugar: SEC champ vs at large
Fiesta: At large vs at large
Cotton: Big 12 champ vs at large
Orange: ACC champ vs at large

Give the Fiesta the first pick from available teams & rotate the other three.

If the Big 12 would rather stick with the Fiesta over the Cotton...then just switch them.

If the Orange wants to renegotiate to replace the ACC champ with an at large...whatever, have at it. Similarly if the Big East or MWC gains enough cache to sign a contract with one of the bowls...that's fine as well.

After bowl week pick the top two teams for a single NC matchup.

Remove the coaches poll from the equation for the selection. Replace it with a voting committee made up of knowledgeable non-partisan (as much as possible) voters.

Use the computers for part of the determination with the caveat that the algorithms be open for peer review & transparency.

Projected 2011 matchups (pick order: Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Cotton, Fiesta):
Rose - Oregon vs Wisconsin
Sugar - Auburn vs Stanford
Cotton - Oklahoma vs TCU
Orange - Virginia Tech vs Arkansas
Fiesta - Ohio State vs UConn

 

[BrutusBuckeyeAZ]

The best thing about a 16 team playoff is the possibility of 3 more OSU games a year!:osu:

 

[y0yoyoin]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/12/16/mark-cuban-bcs/index.html?eref=sihp

Ultimately, though, Cuban would have to convince university presidents. To do that, he said, don't go to the presidents. Go to major donors at the most powerful schools and convince them to cut off their donations unless the president gets behind a playoff. "That's the big missing piece that other folks who have considered this haven't done," Cuban said. "Most of them have gone to the presidents and have gone to the athletic directors and kind of taken the sports path. In reality, you go to the stakeholders."
Would that work? Maybe. Maybe not. Boosters love their bowl trips, too. But they love championships more. Cuban might start by explaining to the big-money boosters at Big Ten schools that the BCS actually is keeping their football teams from playing for the national title. Why? Because Ohio State lost two consecutive BCS title games, and now poll voters are unfairly painting the entire conference with a broad brush. A one-loss SEC team can play for the title, but a one-loss Big Ten team is a lock for the Rose Bowl.
That's just one example of an angle Cuban and his investors could attack. They might also want to target Connecticut legislators, who may have to explain to the state's taxpayers how the University of Connecticut could get stuck with a $2.5 million bill for unsold Fiesta Bowl tickets. According to UConn, 26 percent of the athletics budget for fiscal year 2010 comes from the publically-funded university. So guess who will pay any unexpected costs? Even better, Cuban could offer to buy all of Connecticut's unsold Fiesta Bowl tickets on the condition that university president Philip E. Austin support and vote for a playoff system in the future. That's putting your money where your mouth is.

​